removed freeways in North America

[Duke87]

So after years of Building Freeways to Nowhere being the panacea of economic development, is Tearing Down Freeways going to take its place?

Rochester, Buffalo, Akron...have declined for a number of reasons, and while reduced neighborhood cohesiveness due to the presence of an urban freeway may have played a small part in that decline, it's a factor that's dwarfed by larger economic and demographic trends.

I don't think that's really the reason. The important thing to bear in mind is that pretty much all urban freeways in the US were built in the 1960s or earlier. This means we are now at the point where these freeways are at or past the end of their design life and require lots of money to be spent on rehab/rebuild projects in order to keep them from falling apart. In some cases, in the intervening 50 years the area has declined and traffic counts have declined along with it. In some cases, the freeway was never/is never going to be finished and is of limited usefulness in its unfinished state. But whatever the reason, there will be cases where the cost versus benefit of the necessary rehab just isn't favorable, and it's cheaper and easier to just remove or downgrade the freeway.

Note how whenever you see a freeway removal actually move forward, the removed freeway generally was not fine just being left as is. It was old and decrepit and needed work, if not outright collapsed (as with the West Side Highway and San Fransisco examples). Only CT 34 comes to mind as a true exception to this rule, where the freeway was in perfectly serviceable condition prior to the commencement of its removal but they had other reasons for wanting to get rid of it (a combination of ideology and a grand redevelopment scheme).

[TheStranger]

Note how whenever you see a freeway removal actually move forward, the removed freeway generally was not fine just being left as is. It was old and decrepit and needed work, if not outright collapsed (as with the West Side Highway and San Fransisco examples).

I HAVE heard that the Embarcadero Freeway's damage after the earthquake was not critical enough to necessitate removal (unlike the old Cypress portion of 880 and the section of the Central Freeway between Golden Gate Avenue and Fell Street) but that Mayor Agnos had the process go forward regardless in step with waterfront constituents - which is why Chinatown interests who had supported the existence of 480 as a shortcut to their neighborhood helped swing the 1991 SF mayoral election against him.

[kkt]

Note how whenever you see a freeway removal actually move forward, the removed freeway generally was not fine just being left as is. It was old and decrepit and needed work, if not outright collapsed (as with the West Side Highway and San Fransisco examples).

I HAVE heard that the Embarcadero Freeway's damage after the earthquake was not critical enough to necessitate removal (unlike the old Cypress portion of 880 and the section of the Central Freeway between Golden Gate Avenue and Fell Street) but that Mayor Agnos had the process go forward regardless in step with waterfront constituents - which is why Chinatown interests who had supported the existence of 480 as a shortcut to their neighborhood helped swing the 1991 SF mayoral election against him.

A lot of that agrees with what I read at the time.  The Embarcadero Freeway did not collapse, but was closed and would have required a massive amount of work before it could reopen, comparable to demolishing it and rebuilding from scratch.  Given that and the relatively low traffic counts, most of S.F. agreed that it should not be rebuilt.  Yes, there were Chinatown and North Beach interests who missed it as a convenient off-ramp, however they were a relatively small minority.  Demolishing the Embarcadero Freeway probably gained Agnos as many votes as he lost, maybe more.  The reality of traffic without the Embarcadero Freeway is nowhere near as bad as they feared, once the Embarcadero surface street was redone.

[TheStranger]

  Yes, there were Chinatown and North Beach interests who missed it as a convenient off-ramp, however they were a relatively small minority.  Demolishing the Embarcadero Freeway probably gained Agnos as many votes as he lost, maybe more.  The reality of traffic without the Embarcadero Freeway is nowhere near as bad as they feared, once the Embarcadero surface street was redone.

Agnos lost the 1991 election to Frank Jordan (and the Wikipedia article on the Embarcadero Freeway specifically brings that up as one of the aftereffects of the route's demolition, one of the first times the Asian vote made a significant impact on a SF election).

Without arguing against the visual improvement of the waterfront area post-freeway, the surface streets in the Financial District are very challenging at rush hour - Montgomery Street in particular from the Transamerica Pyramid (near where the Washington Street ramp pair used to land) south past Market through New Montgomery has become an afternoon parking lot. 

[kkt]

  Yes, there were Chinatown and North Beach interests who missed it as a convenient off-ramp, however they were a relatively small minority.  Demolishing the Embarcadero Freeway probably gained Agnos as many votes as he lost, maybe more.  The reality of traffic without the Embarcadero Freeway is nowhere near as bad as they feared, once the Embarcadero surface street was redone.

Agnos lost the 1991 election to Frank Jordan (and the Wikipedia article on the Embarcadero Freeway specifically brings that up as one of the aftereffects of the route's demolition, one of the first times the Asian vote made a significant impact on a SF election).

Without arguing against the visual improvement of the waterfront area post-freeway, the surface streets in the Financial District are very challenging at rush hour - Montgomery Street in particular from the Transamerica Pyramid (near where the Washington Street ramp pair used to land) south past Market through New Montgomery has become an afternoon parking lot. 

It was a close election, so Agnos's loss could be attributed to anything that might have made a couple thousand votes difference.  For instance, he annoyed the firefighters by agreeing to hiring quotas for racial minorities.  He annoyed the police officers in some similar way, I'd have to look it up.  He allowed people made homeless by the Loma Prieta earthquake to camp in the Civic Center plaza until temporary housing was available for them, which seems like a no brainer to me but apparently annoyed some of the conservative downtown interests.  I still say allowing the Embarcadero Freeway to be demolished probably gained him as many votes as it lost.

Montgomery Street was a parking lot at commute hours before the earthquake, too.  In fact, it's been a parking lot at commute hours as long as I can remember.

[Occidental Tourist]

Shoreline Drive in Long Beach, CA was once a freeway from the 710 end.

And it still is, except that there's now a light at the end of a U-turn ramp. As nothing was removed or even reconfigured, I'm not counting it.

Except that the southeast end of the 710 at Shoreline Drive had an interchange at Magnolia/the Queensway Bridge with a loop ramp for eastbound traffic from the 710 to exit onto northbound Magnolia and two ramps for westbound 710 traffic to enter and exit at Chestnut.  It also had two long flyover ramps for traffic to enter the end of the eastbound 710 off of the Queensway Bridge and exit onto the Queensway Bridge from the beginning of the westbound 710.  The loop ramp and flyover ramps were replaced with a single intersection that only allows access onto the Queensway Bridge.

So they demolished a non-signalized grade-separated interchange and replaced it with an at-grade signal . . .

[Mapmikey]

A little late to this thread but Virginia has one:

The southernmost 0.8 miles of the Newport News Connector (super-2 with full access control) that did not become part of I-664 was converted into a regular street.  It used to have a bridge over the RR and VA 351 and now it has at-grade crossings of both.

Mapmikey

[mgk920]

In Wisconsin, the westernmost km or so of the original WI 29 freeway in Chippewa Falls was downgraded to a local surface street when the WI 29 bypass freeway was built in the early '00's.  This is the part between WI 124 and Seymour Cray Bd.

Mike

[Mergingtraffic]

Aren't surface roads more dangerous than freeways? I don't get the rationale of converting freeways to surface streets with stoplights, oncoming traffic etc.  That adds the risk of more potential accidents.

Oh that's right, b/c of the "sins" of the 1950s-1960s all limited access highways are bad no matter what. 

[Mergingtraffic]

Freeway section of CT 34 in New Haven.  I believe that work has since started on this project.

Already listed.

and it's amazing how fast this project was pushed through the red tape and constructed.  If you wanted to add a shoulder instead it'll take years and years of studies, samples and funding.  amazing.

[vdeane]

I think it's amazing how fast freeway removals move.  many of them are so fast that state DOT isn't prepared for it and might even do work to maintain the about to be removed freeway.  With CT 34, obviously ConnDOT didn't know that removal was coming, because there's no need for a flyover like the one they built for a surface street.  The Inner Loop is another obvious one; the City of Rochester pushed it through so quickly at the end (and after such a long period of talking but no action, to the point that nobody believed the removal would actually happen until the closure date was announced), that NYSDOT was not prepared and even installed brand new signs on the portion that is being filled in just months before the closure.

Meanwhile, something as simple as reconstructing a road so that the concrete won't ruin people's cars get stuck in years of red tape and funding issues.

[Pete from Boston]

The flyover eliminated a left exit on a tight turn that was coupled with another left exit.  I don't think the class of road it led to was the issue considering that the freeway is now about three blocks shorter than it used to be. 

Having used that exit plenty over the years, I think the result of the recent work is very good.  Seamless transition, maybe even better than befire.  I don't usually go through at peak times, but it's been fine every time I've used it.  Makes me wonder a little what the fuss was about.

[Pete from Boston]

Aren't surface roads more dangerous than freeways? I don't get the rationale of converting freeways to surface streets with stoplights, oncoming traffic etc.  That adds the risk of more potential accidents.

Oh that's right, b/c of the "sins" of the 1950s-1960s all limited access highways are bad no matter what.

Declaring all limited-access highways to be "bad" would make about as much sense as not acknowledging that there are some places freeways didn't turn out to best meet the situation's needs.

[NE2]

It took a lot longer than I expected for the carsplainers to derail this.

[vdeane]

The flyover eliminated a left exit on a tight turn that was coupled with another left exit.  I don't think the class of road it led to was the issue considering that the freeway is now about three blocks shorter than it used to be. 

Having used that exit plenty over the years, I think the result of the recent work is very good.  Seamless transition, maybe even better than befire.  I don't usually go through at peak times, but it's been fine every time I've used it.  Makes me wonder a little what the fuss was about.

Personally, I would have used something less powerful/expensive for what is essentially a city street.

[UCFKnights]

The flyover eliminated a left exit on a tight turn that was coupled with another left exit.  I don't think the class of road it led to was the issue considering that the freeway is now about three blocks shorter than it used to be. 

Having used that exit plenty over the years, I think the result of the recent work is very good.  Seamless transition, maybe even better than befire.  I don't usually go through at peak times, but it's been fine every time I've used it.  Makes me wonder a little what the fuss was about.

because the old ramps were perfectly fine too, and seemingly designed for higher speeds. The real problem with the old ramp was the signage was very poor. The fact it was a left exit was not highlighted until you were right on top of the exit. Just about everyone I know (myself included) has either accidentally exited or missed the exit at that interchange at least once, but again, due to poor signage.

[Pete from Boston]

We'll have to agree to disagree that the previous exit was a good situation. I don't know what its accident record was, but that was always a messy area. A left exit off a left exit in the midst of a high-volume curve was far from ideal.

Since there seems to be a sentiment that the flyover was overkill, does anyone know what the justification used for its construction was?

[theline]

Aren't surface roads more dangerous than freeways? I don't get the rationale of converting freeways to surface streets with stoplights, oncoming traffic etc.  That adds the risk of more potential accidents.

Oh that's right, b/c of the "sins" of the 1950s-1960s all limited access highways are bad no matter what.

Sometimes it's a matter of economics. There is naturally some expense in doing the conversion, but in the long run it's cheaper to maintain an at-grade intersection than an overpass.

An example that comes to mind is Exit 77 from the Indiana Toll Road (SR-933, South Bend, Notre Dame). It was originally a double trumpet. When the overpass at the south end (over 933) needed repair or replacement, INDOT decided to go with a conversion to traffic signals. Although the intersection is heavily traveled, the signal works well.

[lepidopteran]

An example that comes to mind is Exit 77 from the Indiana Toll Road (SR-933, South Bend, Notre Dame). It was originally a double trumpet. When the overpass at the south end (over 933) needed repair or replacement, INDOT decided to go with a conversion to traffic signals. Although the intersection is heavily traveled, the signal works well.

It's also now a 4-way intersection leading to Douglas Rd, instead of just a T.  But one reason there was a trumpet there in the first place was that the road was elevated anyway to go over a railroad track that paralleled 933 at that point.  With the tracks abandoned sometime in the 1980s, there was no need for a bridge there, so the road was just flattened to grade.  (North of the ramp, the railbed is now the "LaSalle Big Bluestem Trail")  I know of one other location, in New Jersey, where a not-really-needed interchange was converted to an at-grade intersection after the railroad it was built around was dismantled.

Having said that, I've noticed a tendency for the early, 50's-60's-era toll roads to build a trumpet interchange with the surface road by default, whether the traffic count called for it or not.  Some of those early loop ramps were tight; with today's longer trucks, a signalized intersection might actually be safer, especially in areas where it ices up in the winter.  I suspect there was a "mentality" if you will, at the time, that stopping traffic on surface roads with signals was a no-no when it came to freeway access, which also explains all the full cloverleafs with surface arterials from that era, many of which have recently been converted to parclos to avoid weaving motions.

[Laura]

Another rural/suburban relocation: I-70 in Maryland between exits 56 and 59. The old I-70 alignment is now part of MD 144.


iPhone

[NE2]

Another rural/suburban relocation: I-70 in Maryland between exits 56 and 59. The old I-70 alignment is now part of MD 144.


iPhone

This was never a full freeway.

PS: what's with the 1pt iPhone text? I've seen it on multiple people's posts.

[bing101]

CA-275 in Sacramento became Tower Gateway the arterial up to the state capital.

[TheStranger]

CA-275 in Sacramento became Tower Gateway the arterial up to the state capital.

This actually applies only to the (former) 275 routing (originally US 99W/US 40) in West Sacramento only.  East of the Sacramento River, Capitol Mall has never been a freeway.

[TXtoNJ]

Having said that, I've noticed a tendency for the early, 50's-60's-era toll roads to build a trumpet interchange with the surface road by default, whether the traffic count called for it or not.  Some of those early loop ramps were tight; with today's longer trucks, a signalized intersection might actually be safer, especially in areas where it ices up in the winter.  I suspect there was a "mentality" if you will, at the time, that stopping traffic on surface roads with signals was a no-no when it came to freeway access, which also explains all the full cloverleafs with surface arterials from that era, many of which have recently been converted to parclos to avoid weaving motions.

That was more so that they only had to build and maintain one toll plaza per interchange. Back when all tollbooths had human collectors, this would significantly reduce operating costs.

[NE2]

That was more so that they only had to build and maintain one toll plaza per interchange. Back when all tollbooths had human collectors, this would significantly reduce operating costs.

No, what he's saying is that the intersection with the surface road was often a trumpet rather than an at-grade.